Question 1
What constitutes a defamatory statement or implication? “In general, a defamatory statement or imputation is one which: is false; and tends to discredit a person by damaging his good name”. (Murphy and McGuinness, 2011, p.48). The plaintiff cannot sue for defamation if the statement released is true information. In Sober’s case, the statement (photo) has been manipulated so it would stand as defamation. So has Sober been defamed? All in all, yes she has. Sober is the spokesperson for health and she is known for being against smoking, drinking and drugs. Therefore, the publishing of this photo of Sober is showing her in a bad light, proving her to be a liar and abusing alcohol and drugs to an excessive amount.
In order for Sober …show more content…
The photo has been manipulated so we know it is not Sober but if those at the newspaper were trying to win this case, they would need other proof to show that Sober was at this location on the date and time, this photo could be of a woman who simply looks like Sober and the paper printed it under Sober’s name. Although, this is going to be very hard for them to do so. No matter how hard they try, with Sober fighting back against them, it would be near to impossible for them to find any sort of proof that it is her and that she was there. Likewise, Sober would need proof to show she was not at the location on this date and time. She would need an alibi to prove she was elsewhere. This would definitely be a lot easier for Sober to achieve, more than likely 9 times out of 10, a person can prove they were not at a specific location. If we were to take the Anas Modamani vs Facebook Ltd case again as an example, although Facebook won this case, those who created these photos and shared the original posts would hold the burden of proof to show that Modamani was in fact related to these jihad groups and that he had ever been to the locations in the …show more content…
Firstly, the work must not be copied from another work. Secondly, more than a minimal amount of skill, labour and judgement must have been expended in creating the work”, (Carey, 2010, p.78), then it could be considered that this photo both breaches the Act and doesn’t breach the Act. In a way, the manipulated photograph is copied from the original, because although the face and possibly other features may have been altered, the fact is, Sober will still be on top of the same car in the same position as the other woman, holding the same objects and in the same location. Therefore, the two photos in question stand to be the same as one another. However, “an infringement occurs if the act is carried out:…making any adaption to the work”, (Murphy and McGuinness, 2011, p.177). So, edits were made to this photo meaning the original photographer could sue the Rural Record for
What constitutes a defamatory statement or implication? “In general, a defamatory statement or imputation is one which: is false; and tends to discredit a person by damaging his good name”. (Murphy and McGuinness, 2011, p.48). The plaintiff cannot sue for defamation if the statement released is true information. In Sober’s case, the statement (photo) has been manipulated so it would stand as defamation. So has Sober been defamed? All in all, yes she has. Sober is the spokesperson for health and she is known for being against smoking, drinking and drugs. Therefore, the publishing of this photo of Sober is showing her in a bad light, proving her to be a liar and abusing alcohol and drugs to an excessive amount.
In order for Sober …show more content…
The photo has been manipulated so we know it is not Sober but if those at the newspaper were trying to win this case, they would need other proof to show that Sober was at this location on the date and time, this photo could be of a woman who simply looks like Sober and the paper printed it under Sober’s name. Although, this is going to be very hard for them to do so. No matter how hard they try, with Sober fighting back against them, it would be near to impossible for them to find any sort of proof that it is her and that she was there. Likewise, Sober would need proof to show she was not at the location on this date and time. She would need an alibi to prove she was elsewhere. This would definitely be a lot easier for Sober to achieve, more than likely 9 times out of 10, a person can prove they were not at a specific location. If we were to take the Anas Modamani vs Facebook Ltd case again as an example, although Facebook won this case, those who created these photos and shared the original posts would hold the burden of proof to show that Modamani was in fact related to these jihad groups and that he had ever been to the locations in the …show more content…
Firstly, the work must not be copied from another work. Secondly, more than a minimal amount of skill, labour and judgement must have been expended in creating the work”, (Carey, 2010, p.78), then it could be considered that this photo both breaches the Act and doesn’t breach the Act. In a way, the manipulated photograph is copied from the original, because although the face and possibly other features may have been altered, the fact is, Sober will still be on top of the same car in the same position as the other woman, holding the same objects and in the same location. Therefore, the two photos in question stand to be the same as one another. However, “an infringement occurs if the act is carried out:…making any adaption to the work”, (Murphy and McGuinness, 2011, p.177). So, edits were made to this photo meaning the original photographer could sue the Rural Record for